582 replies to this topic

[CroFighter]

Option 1 Must Win!!! PvP Protection Must Be Removed! That way the BB will be more alive.

[jbhouse]

And so if the gold is able to be hit but not xp from these suggestions....then what are pvpers giving up? lol seems pretty one sided there.

pvp guys are giving up having the protection completely removed and levelers are giving up gold protection. levelers still keep xp and pvp still steals gold from guys who dont take care of it properly

[apedde]

pay to protect yourself is not justice, there should be some place in the world where they were "protecting" the people who were there could not be attacked .. but could not protect the relics ... I think it is more justice would have to give up something in order to protect yourself ...

[morderme]

the high MP prices are not due to protection. way back years ago when the MP was at 100k we didnt have guys much over lv700-800. the gold intake per hunt was why less than what you get at say lv1300-1400 and there are so many more players at the higher levels now the higher gold rate has run up the MP. the only way to lower MP is to reduce the overall gold per creature kill and im sure that wont be popular with the players.

Any chance the high gold prices in the MP are due to players using their rewards from the last Global Event? It took about a week after the end of the GE for prices to start rising and now they are pretty high as reported in this forum. Once that activity dies down, then the price of gold should start to lower significantly.

[jbhouse]

Option 1 Must Win!!! PvP Protection Must Be Removed! That way the BB will be more alive.

the BB will stay just as alive with gold protection only removed. its the main reason BB are placed in my opinion.

[slingerett]

still not seeing the pvper loss here lol.

[apedde]

could be called the Temple of the Fallen, or Temple of Cowards ...

pay to protect yourself is not justice, there should be some place in the world where they were "protecting" the people who were there could not be attacked .. but could not protect the relics ... I think it is more justice would have to give up something in order to protect yourself ...

[Woulfe]

still not seeing the pvper loss here lol.

We can now bounty every hit. What did the Levelers give up for that?

[jbhouse]

the high MP prices are not due to protection. way back years ago when the MP was at 100k we didnt have guys much over lv700-800. the gold intake per hunt was why less than what you get at say lv1300-1400 and there are so many more players at the higher levels now the higher gold rate has run up the MP. the only way to lower MP is to reduce the overall gold per creature kill and im sure that wont be popular with the players.

Any chance the high gold prices in the MP are due to players using their rewards from the last Global Event? It took about a week after the end of the GE for prices to start rising and now they are pretty high as reported in this forum. Once that activity dies down, then the price of gold should start to lower significantly.

it may have a little part in it but the chest pots dont have any gold increase buffs in them, only mainly xp increase buffs

[slingerett]

still not seeing the pvper loss here lol.

We can now bounty every hit. What did the Levelers give up for that?

off topic

[Shadow19231]

still not seeing the pvper loss here lol.

We can now bounty every hit. What did the Levelers give up for that?

Leveling has no connection to PvP other than levelers getting hit for gold (and apparently other reasons)

[CALVARYMAN]

Keep the PVP protection in place just the way it is , is my vote .The reasons I vote this way are because there are merchants & potion makers who can at times become sitting targets holding much gold & if it is a PVPer hiding they have to come up for air sometime as well as there being other ways of getting to them .

[Eleonora2]

If you haven't noticed already, current marketplace prices are outrageous! The number one cause of this is inflation is PvP Protection!
Remove Protection. Enough Said.

Prove it or stop playing on people's fears (of ever higher marketprice).

Hunters having to get rid of their gold in fear of being hit in PvP over it is far more likely cause of increasing mp. Remove or even lower gold protection will cause more hunters to have to get rid of more gold so likely the result would be higher mp than ever before.

Mind you i cannot afford protection myself so it does not concern me directly. The effect on mp however does.

[lawyergod]

This might be obvious to most, but since these discussions are usually heated, blind to logic, and fairly dogmatic (much like US politics -- OOH, ZING!), I figure it's worth pointing out: the issue with PvP is that, ultimately, only a minority of players are active in it. It IS a sizable minority, at least 25 percent, possibly more, but still only a minority. And it IS an important part of the game, both for that constituent of players and for others, who might be more passively involved in PvP, or intermittently so, but all "improvements" to PvP have to be balances such that they don't irk the sizable majority of players (myself included, admittedly) who do not PvP much, if at all.

Such is the case with PvP Protection (and with the Smasher medal, referenced early on in this thread, so it's on my mind. The issue with Smasher, in a nutshell, is that it incentivized the one aspect of PvP that non-PvP'ers disapprove of most, which led to the massive outcry against it). I think the best possible balance, of the choices given, is the second choice (as most middle-of-the-road choices ultimately are). By maintaining the option for PvP Protection, you give those players who are (or feel) bullied an out, and give people who need the protection for one reason or another -- e.g. someone has 30 pages of auctions up, and expects to be inundated with gold for a short time -- a way to protect themselves. But by lowering the protected gold, it prevents abuse OF the protection. Personally, I think I would go a step further as well, and remove (or shorten, to 14 days) the 28-day protection option, as that seems a bit over the top, and/or possibly raise the price for PvP protection outright.

[Woulfe]

still not seeing the pvper loss here lol.

We can now bounty every hit. What did the Levelers give up for that?

off topic

If everything is a give and take then the PvPers should have gained from that exchange. Im just pointing out that you dont always need to gain something in order to improve the game.

Not off topic

[jbutler16]

Remove it from all except new players, it's not fair that people who donate more to the game should be able to not be attacked...

[slingerett]

[

If everything is a give and take then the PvPers should have gained from that exchange. Im just pointing out that you dont always need to gain something in order to improve the game.

Not off topic[/quote]
pvpers gained more bounties to get smasher medals....give and take

[Bigk]

Remove the PvP Protection upgrade completely (except for 14 days protection for new players)

[jbhouse]

This might be obvious to most, but since these discussions are usually heated, blind to logic, and fairly dogmatic (much like US politics -- OOH, ZING!), I figure it's worth pointing out: the issue with PvP is that, ultimately, only a minority of players are active in it. It IS a sizable minority, at least 25 percent, possibly more, but still only a minority. And it IS an important part of the game, both for that constituent of players and for others, who might be more passively involved in PvP, or intermittently so, but all "improvements" to PvP have to be balances such that they don't irk the sizable majority of players (myself included, admittedly) who do not PvP much, if at all.

Such is the case with PvP Protection (and with the Smasher medal, referenced early on in this thread, so it's on my mind. The issue with Smasher, in a nutshell, is that it incentivized the one aspect of PvP that non-PvP'ers disapprove of most, which led to the massive outcry against it). I think the best possible balance, of the choices given, is the second choice (as most middle-of-the-road choices ultimately are). By maintaining the option for PvP Protection, you give those players who are (or feel) bullied an out, and give people who need the protection for one reason or another -- e.g. someone has 30 pages of auctions up, and expects to be inundated with gold for a short time -- a way to protect themselves. But by lowering the protected gold, it prevents abuse OF the protection. Personally, I think I would go a step further as well, and remove (or shorten, to 14 days) the 28-day protection option, as that seems a bit over the top, and/or possibly raise the price for PvP protection outright.

on that note why not just make two kinds of protection available to buy then. one for really short time for AH sellers who feel they will get stole from before they an change up funds. and one for the guys who want to protect xp only. (xp lock doesnt do this for a hunt so its not the same thing). i personally feel gold should not be protected ever but i dont pvp either.

[Vappster]

pvp protection is there for a reason....leave it there please is my vote. I personally dont care if i get hit while i hunt but i would like the option of it to be there so if i were to get into a confrontation with a player i dont wake up to see my logs filled with hourly 100 stam hits because that is what i believe protection is supposed to be for. sure i can bounty, but that just costs me more gold in the long run for a not very punishable recourse. most bounties are ten stam cleared by friends or hunters. there has to be some way to not be harassed with hourly hits.

I agree with this. If you're going to change anything about it like removing protection or lowering gold holding, then pvp attacks need to be the same way a bounty used to work. Once you've 100 stammed someone in a pvp attack for gold or prestige or because you're a sociopath that just likes to smash people at your level because you're attacking someone that's asleep and can, or you're stalking someone because they've ticked you off for some reason. you shouldn't be able to hit them again for 48 hours, just like the bounty used to be.

If pvp were for real, instead of being used as a tool to intimidate, the pvpers might have a point. I see with some guilds that isnt the point at all.